MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979797233 · doi:10.1177/0958928720963324

Reducing mommy penalties with daddy quotas

2020· article· en· W2979797233 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison Dunatchik, Berkay Özcan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of European Social Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Labor, and Family Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNatural experimentDifference in differencesDemographic economicsWork (physics)Significant differencePercentage pointEconomicsLabour economicsEconometricsStatisticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates whether daddy quotas – non-transferable paternity leave policies – mitigate motherhood penalties women face in the labour market. Using the introduction of a daddy quota in Quebec, Canada as a natural experiment, we employ labour force survey data to conduct a difference-in-difference estimation of the policy’s impact on a range of mothers’ career outcomes, using mothers in the neighbouring province of Ontario as a comparison group. The results suggest Quebec mothers exposed to the policy are 5 percentage points more likely to participate in the labour force and to work full time, 5 percentage points less likely to work part time, and 4 percentage points less likely to be unemployed than they would have been in the absence of the policy. Our results are robust to an alternative semi-parametric difference-in-difference methodology and to a battery of placebo and sensitivity tests. However, we find that the policy’s effects are largest 2 to 3 years post-reform, reducing in size and significance thereafter, raising questions about the durability of such effects.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.265 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of European Social PolicySame topicGender, Labor, and Family DynamicsFrench-language works237,207